MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6998481650

Architecture as Irony in Michael Ondaatje's Novel In the Skin of a Lion

2003· other· en· W6998481650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOsuva (University of Vaasa) · 2003
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIronyArchitectureInterpretation (philosophy)Representation (politics)The ImaginaryPower (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study I have analysed the different, often ironic, ways of representing well-known works of architecture in Michael Ondaatje’s novel In the Skin of a Lion (1987). The Bloor Street Viaduct and the waterworks, which are under construction in the narrative, are famous landmarks in the city of Toronto. I have studied how the different characters (from different social classes) refer to the works of architecture in the novel, what kind of language they use, and what are their attitudes towards the artefacts. According to Michel Foucault, architecture may be used as a disciplinary tool in society. Buildings can support the prevailing hierarchical structures both symbolically and practically. On the other hand, Linda Hutcheon states that the ironic interpretation contests single meanings. In this study, I have claimed that the ironic interpretation of the works of architecture enables the characters to cross the imaginary boundaries in society, that is, irony as a literary device in the novel offers a view to Canadian society as manifold and dynamic. \n\nThe conclusions of the study was that even though the edifices in the novel seem to function as a support of the disciplinary society, irony generates border-crossings, which mock the power hierarchies and gradually change the structures of society. Ironic representation in the novel, therefore, contests the notion of Canadian society as stagnant.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOsuva (University of Vaasa)French-language works237,207